Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 22:42:04 +0200 From: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@flat.berklix.net> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Rene Ladan <r.c.ladan@student.tue.nl> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Negative disc usage from /bin/df 6.0-BETA5 Message-ID: <200509272042.j8RKg4JV022691@fire.jhs.private> In-Reply-To: Message from Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> of "Tue, 27 Sep 2005 10:48:51 EDT." <20050927144851.GA12766@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- Kris Kennaway wrote: (& similar private mail from Rene L. thanks to both) > On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:21:50PM +0200, Julian Stacey wrote: > > 6.0-BETA5 /bin/df > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > > /dev/ad0s4a 253678 91884 141500 39% / > > devfs 1 1 0 100% /dev > > /dev/ad0s4d 253678 141418 91966 61% /var > > /dev/ad0s4e 253678 -272 233656 -0% /tmp > > /dev/ad0s4f 5421722 3255960 1732026 65% /usr > >=20 > > 108% is plausible when eg root has eaten most of the reserve allowed by= > =20 > > eg 'newfs -m 10', but ... Negative disc usage just doesnt look right ! > > umount and fsck..you probably have some fs corruption. Yes, thanks, FREE BLK COUNT(S) WRONG IN SUPERBLK SALVAGE? yes First I was just so amused to see negative space used (& had wondered about ratio of int to unsigned usage in the FS etc). -- Julian Stacey. Consultant Unix Net & Sys. Eng., Munich. http://berklix.com Mail Ascii not HTML. Ihr Rauch = meine allergischen Kopfschmerzen.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200509272042.j8RKg4JV022691>